Research

Laursen, B., Vienni-Baptista, B., Bammer, G., Di Giulio, A., Paulsen, T., Robson-Williams, M., & Studer, S. (2024). Toolkitting: an unrecognized form of expertise for overcoming fragmentation in inter- and transdisciplinarity. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03279-9

Laursen, B. K., Gonnerman, C., & Crowley, S. J. (2021). Improving philosophical dialogue interventions to better resolve problematic value pluralism in collaborative environmental science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 87, 54–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2021.02.004

Environmental problems often outstrip the abilities of any single scientist to understand, much less address. As a result, collaborations within, across, and without the environmental sciences are an increasingly important part of the environmental science landscape. In this article, we explore an insufficiently recognized and particularly challenging barrier to collaborative environmental science: value pluralism, the presence of non-trivial differences in the values that collaborators bring to bear on project decisions. We argue that resolving the obstacles posed by value pluralism to collaborative environmental science requires identifying and coordinating the underlying value differences. We identify five ways that a team might coordinate their value differences and argue that, whichever mode is adopted, it ought to be governed by democratic virtues; pragmatic resolve; and moral concern. Relying on our experiences in the Toolbox Dialogue Initiative, as well as with other dialogical approaches that support team inquiry, we defend the claim that philosophical dialogue among collaborators can go a long way towards helping teams of environmental scientists and fellow travelers identify their value differences. Where dialogical approaches fare less well is in helping teams coordinate their differences. We close by describing several principles for augmenting philosophical dialogue with other methods, and we list several of these methods in an appendix with brief descriptions and links for further learning. Overall, the article makes three main contributions to the research collaboration and values in science literatures: (1) It deepens our understanding of problematic value pluralism in team science; (2) It provides actionable guidance and methods for improving values-oriented philosophical dialogue interventions; and (3) It demonstrates one way of doing engaged philosophy.

Laursen, B. K., & O’Rourke, M. (2019). Thinking with Klein about Integration. Issues in Interdisciplinary Studies, 37(2), 33–61. 

Integration is crucial to interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary work and it therefore deserves perennial attention by scholars and practitioners of such work. Few have thought so carefully, deeply, and tenaciously about integration as Julie Thompson Klein. In this article, we recount the development of Klein’s thinking on integration, from her early stepwise model in 1990 to her current socio-linguistic model. After summarizing Klein’s views, we compare the socio-linguistic model to a more recent view of integration known as the IPO (input-process-output) model. We show how these two models of integration relate to one another, and then we demonstrate their complementarity using an example of integrative argumentation from a Toolbox workshop. We conclude that we can understand instances of cross- disciplinary integration better with both models than with only one or the other. This theoretical stereoscope opens new avenues of research about the types of integrative relations collaborators use, what is involved in social/rhetorical integration, and the extent to which it is feasible to specify all of the parameters in an instance of integra- tion.

Laursen, B. K. (2018). What is collaborative, interdisciplinary reasoning? The heart of interdisciplinary team science. Informing Science, 21, 75–106. http://doi.org/10.28945/4010

(reprinted in Gaetano R Lotrecchiano & Shalini Misra (Editors). 2020. Transdisciplinary Teams and Communication. Santa Rosa, CA: Informing Science Press)

Collaborative, interdisciplinary research is growing rapidly, but we still have limited and fragmented understanding of what is arguably the heart of such research—collaborative, interdisciplinary reasoning (CIR). This article integrates neo-Pragmatist theories of reasoning with insights from literature on interdisciplinary research to develop a working definition of collaborative, interdisciplinary reasoning. The article then applies this definition to an empirical example to demonstrate its utility. The empirical example is an excerpt from a Toolbox workshop transcript. The article reconstructs a cogent, inductive, interdisciplinary argument from the excerpt to show how CIR can proceed in an actual team. The study contributes operational definitions of ‘reasoning together’ and ‘collaborative, interdisciplinary reasoning’ to existing literature. It also demonstrates empirical methods for operationalizing these definitions, with the argument reconstruction providing a brief case study in how teams reason together. 

Laursen, B. K. (2018). On the intersection of interdisciplinary studies and argumentation studies: The case of inference to the best explanation. Issues in Interdisciplinary Studies, 36(1), 93–125.

This article aims to convince readers of the value of intersecting the scholarship of interdisciplinarity with the field of argumentation studies. The interdisciplinarity literature has not much engaged with the vehicle that carries interdisciplinary learning, languages, and locutions: the argument. On the argumentation studies side, despite the diverse interests of these scholars, not many have studied how reasoning proceeds in interdisciplinary inquiries. To aid bridge-building from both sides, I use the example of interdisciplinary abductive reasoning to show how the two fields can benefit from each other. The article proceeds as thin, comparative case studies thickened by theory. By analyzing two extended cases of inquiry cast in Douglas Walton’s argumentation terms, I argue Walton’s model is necessary but not sufficient for understanding and dealing with the unique challenges of interdisciplinary abduction. I propose, instead, we add the PEPR model (Pattern Recognition, Explanation Imagination, Pattern Matching, and Reporting) to help us focus on the data to be explained while we lean on Walton’s model to understand the people doing the explaining. I conclude argumentation studies and interdisciplinary theory can be mutually enlightening.

• Laursen, B. K., & O'Rourke, M. (2019). Detecting Integrative Discourse in Team Meetings. Presented at the International Transdisciplinarity Conference, Gothenburg, Sweden.
• Laursen, B. K., & O'Rourke, M. (2018). Evidence for integrative reasoning in interdisciplinary team science. Galveston, TX.
• Laursen, B. K., & O'Rourke, M. (2018). Humanities-based methods for the cognitive science of communication: Examples from the toolbox Dialogue project. Presented at the Cognitive Science of Communication Studies Symposium, East Lansing, MI.

O'Rourke, M., Crowley, S., Laursen, B. K., Robinson, B., & Vasko, S. E. (2019). Disciplinary Diversity in Teams: Integrative Approaches from Unidisciplinarity to Transdisciplinarity. In K. L. Hall, A. L. Vogel, & R. T. Croyle (Eds.), Strategies for Team Science Success (pp. 21–46). Cham: Springer International Publishing. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20992-6_2

In this chapter we highlight research that illuminates the challenge of disciplinary diversity as well as research that describes effective responses to this challenge. After a few preliminary remarks, we unfold this challenge in three steps. First, we discuss the process of identifying relevant disciplinary resources. Second, we examine what it is for a team to be ready to marshal these resources in integrative, cross-disciplinary team science. Finally, we discuss the process of combining, or integrating, these resources in a research project.

Laursen, B. K. (2016, May). Explicating and negotiating bias in interdisciplinary inquiry using abductive tools. Argumentation, Objectivity, and Bias: the 11th Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, Windsor, Ontario, Canada.  https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA11/papersandcommentaries/138/

Laursen, B. K. (2015, December). ‘Feeling into’ accurate, credible, and just explanations: Empathy as the means to know how and why. Department of Philosophy Seventh Annual Public Proseminar Workshop, East Lansing, MI. December 5.

Members of the SESYNC theme “Building Resources for Complex, Action-Oriented Team Science.” (2020, March 24). Effectively including online participants in onsite meetings. I2insights.org. https://i2insights.org/2020/03/24/effective-online-plus-onsite-meetings/

Voinov, A. A., Jenni, K., Gray, S., Kolagani, N., Glynn, P. D., Bommel, P., et al. (2018). Tools and methods in participatory modeling: Selecting the right tool for the job. Environmental Modelling & Software, 109, 232–255. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2018.08.028

Various tools and methods are used in participatory modelling, at different stages of the process and for different purposes. The diversity of tools and methods can create challenges for stakeholders and modelers when selecting the ones most appropriate for their projects. We offer a systematic overview, assessment, and categorization of methods to assist modelers and stakeholders with their choices and decisions. Most available literature provides little justification or information on the reasons for the use of particular methods or tools in a given study. In most of the cases, it seems that the prior experience and skills of the modelers had a dominant effect on the selection of the methods used. While we have not found any real evidence of this approach being wrong, we do think that putting more thought into the method selection process and choosing the most appropriate method for the project can produce better results. Based on expert opinion and a survey of modelers engaged in participatory processes, we offer practical guidelines to improve decisions about method selection at different stages of the participatory modeling process.

Jordan, R., Gray, S., Zellner, M., Glynn, P. D., Voinov, A. A., Hedelin, B., et al. (2018). Twelve Questions for the Participatory Modeling Community. Earth's Future, 18(2), 21. http://doi.org/10.1029/2018EF000841

Participatory modeling engages the implicit and explicit knowledge of stakeholders to create formalized and shared representations of reality and has evolved into a field of study as well as a practice. Participatory modeling researchers and practitioners who focus specifically on environmental resources met at the National Socio‐Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC) in Annapolis, Maryland, over the course of 2 years to discuss the state of the field and future directions for participatory modeling. What follows is a description of 12 overarching groups of questions that could guide future inquiry.

Gray, S., Voinov, A. A., Paolisso, M., Jordan, R., BenDor, T., Bommel, P., et al. (2017). Purpose, Processes, Partnerships, and Products: 4Ps to advance Participatory Socio-Environmental Modeling. Ecological Applications, 28(1), 46–61. http://doi.org/10.1002/eap.1627

Including stakeholders in environmental model building and analysis is an increasingly popular approach to understanding ecological change. This is because stakeholders often hold valuable knowledge about socio-environmental dynamics and collaborative forms of modeling produce important boundary objects used to collectively reason about environmental problems. Although the number of participatory modeling (PM) case studies and the number of researchers adopting these approaches has grown in recent years, the lack of standardized reporting and limited reproducibility have prevented PM's establishment and advancement as a cohesive field of study. We suggest a four-dimensional framework (4P) that includes reporting on dimensions of: (1) the Purpose for selecting a PM approach (the why); (2) the Process by which the public was involved in model building or evaluation (the how); (3) the Partnerships formed (the who); and (4) the Products that resulted from these efforts (the what). We highlight four case studies that use common PM software-based approaches (fuzzy cognitive mapping, agent-based modeling, system dynamics, and participatory geospatial modeling) to understand human-environment interactions and the consequences of ecological changes, including bushmeat hunting in Tanzania and Cameroon, agricultural production and deforestation in Zambia, and groundwater management in India. We demonstrate how standardizing communication about PM case studies can lead to innovation and new insights about model-based reasoning in support of ecological policy development. We suggest that our 4P framework and reporting approach provides a way for new hypotheses to be identified and tested in the growing field of PM.

• Laursen, B. K., Motzer, N., and Anderson, K. J. (2022). Pathways for assessing interdisciplinarity: A systematic review. Research Evaluation, 31(3): 326–343. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvac013
• Laursen, B. K., Anderson, K., and Motzer, N. (2022). Systematic review of the literature assessing interdisciplinarity from 2000 to 2019. Harvard Dataverse. V4, UNF:6:UKaEjVNGIKift5LU3ZH6HQ== [fileUNF]. http://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/6UCNKW 
• Laursen, B. K., Motzer, N., and Anderson, K. (2020, June). Results of a systematic review show how to improve measurement of interdisciplinarity. Presented at the 11th Annual Science of Team Science Conference, Virtual. https://youtu.be/q89CcZyHfr8

Laursen, B. K., Motzer, N., and Anderson, K. (2019, May). A new methodology for evaluating integration in interdisciplinary research products. Presented at the 10th Annual Science of Team Science Conference, Lansing, MI.

Our research community's comprehensive book about the Toolbox Dialogue Initiative.

Hubbs, G., Laursen, B. K., Rinkus, M. A., Robinson, B., & Vasko, S. E. (2018, May). The Toolbox Dialogue Initiative: Evidence of effectiveness and new directions. Presented at the 8th annual Science of Team Science Conference, Galveston, TX.

Pappalardo, G., B. K. Laursen, and B. Pecorino. (2014, June). Assessing adaptive co-management capacity for improving the LEADER Initiative: Findings from two Sicilian Local Action Groups, International Symposium on Society and Resource Management, Hanover, Germany.

This was my thesis work for my joint M.S. in Environment & Resources and Forestry at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

• Laursen, B. K. (2013, July 17). Sustaining multifunctional landscapes through expertise networks: A case study from Southwest Wisconsin, USA. (M. G. Rickenbach, Ed.). University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI. Retrieved from http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1793/71938
• Laursen, B. K. (2013, September). Sustaining complexity by evaluating expertise networks: A case study from a Driftless Area landscape. Environmental Evaluators Network Pacific Forum, Corbett, OR.
• Laursen, B. K. (2013, July). Sustaining multifunctional landscapes through expertise networks: A case study from the Driftless Area. Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison. 

Walters, R., Kenzie, E., Metzger, A., Baltutis, W. J., Chakrabarti, K., Hirsch, S., and Laursen, B. K. (2019). A systems thinking approach for eliciting mental models from visual boundary objects in hydropolitical contexts: A case study from the Pilcomayo River Basin. Ecology & Society 24(2), https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10586-240209

Transboundary collaborations related to international freshwater are critical for ensuring equitable, efficient, and sustainable shared access to our planet’s most fundamental resources. Visual artifacts, such as knowledge maps, functioning as boundary objects, are used in hydropolitical contexts to convey understandings and facilitate discussion across scales about challenges and opportunities from multiple perspectives. Such focal points for discussion are valuable in creating shared, socially negotiated priorities and integrating diverse and often disparate cultural perspectives that naturally exist in the context of international transboundary water resources. Visual boundary objects can also represent the collective mental models of the actor countries and transboundary institutions and encompass their perspectives on the complex hydro-social cycles within specific “problem-shed” regions of the shared resources. To investigate and synthesize these multiple concepts, we developed a novel method of eliciting mental models from visual boundary objects in social-ecological contexts by combining content analysis with theoretical frameworks for boundary objects and systems thinking. Using this method, we analyzed visual boundary objects represented in publicly available documents formally related to decision making in the Pilcomayo River Basin in South America. The Pilcomayo River Basin is a unique case for investigating decision making in international collaboration among represented states, given the unique social and biophysical challenges that have plagued the region for over a century. Using our framework, we were able to develop insight into the collective mental models of stakeholders, organizations, and decision-making institutions, related to priorities, vulnerabilities, and adaptation strategies among the various socioeconomic, cultural, political, and biophysical drivers for different regions and scales of the basin.

This was my thesis work for my joint M.S. in Environment & Resources and Forestry at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

• Laursen, B. K. (2013, July 17). Sustaining multifunctional landscapes through expertise networks: A case study from Southwest Wisconsin, USA. (M. G. Rickenbach, Ed.). University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI. Retrieved from http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1793/71938
• Laursen, B. K. (2013, September). Sustaining complexity by evaluating expertise networks: A case study from a Driftless Area landscape. Environmental Evaluators Network Pacific Forum, Corbett, OR.
• Laursen, B. K. (2013, July). Sustaining multifunctional landscapes through expertise networks: A case study from the Driftless Area. Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison. 

An Assessment of CSUS 301: Community Engagement for Sustainability

Download the report.

• Laursen, B. K., Siegford, J., Thorp, L., Thompson, P. B., and Rozeboom, D. (2016, July). College student perceptions of animal welfare are sensitive to experiential farm tours and classroom pedagogy. International Society for Applied Ethology, Edinburgh, Scotland.
• Laursen, B. K., Siegford, J., Thorp, L., Thompson, P. B., and Rozeboom, D. (2016, May). College student perceptions of animal welfare are sensitive to experiential farm tours and classroom pedagogy. 4th Food Justice Workshop, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

Laursen, B. K. (2020). Liberal education and effective action: A commentary. Journal of General Education 68(3-4), 307-310.

• Long, C. P. and Laursen, B. K. (2020). The liberal arts endeavor: Valuing peer review. Journal of General Education 68(3-4), vii-xi.
• Long, C. P. and Laursen, B. K. (2020). The liberal arts endeavor: Celebrating a quarter center of University Studies at Portland State. Journal of General Education 67(1-2), v-viii.
• Long, C. P. and Laursen, B. K. (2020). The liberal arts endeavor: Enacting values in general education reform. Journal of General Education 66(3-4), v-vii.

Laursen, B. K. (2014). The sina qua non is Christ: A synthesized model of excellent education. Journal for the Society of Classical Learning, VII, 26–28.

Laursen, B. K. (2014, March 1). Standing in Line, Standing in a Legacy: an Environmental History of the Babcock Hall Dairy Store. The Wisconsin Magazine of History, 97(3), 3–15. http://doi.org/10.2307/24402399

Laursen, B. K. (2012, November). Summer fieldwork. Segment in the radio show, Science as storytelling, scientists as storytellers. Produced by Kaitlin Rienzo-Stack. The Perpetual Notion Machine. WORT FM 89.9. Madison, WI. November 28. http://tinyurl.com/SciStory

• Laursen, B. K. (2015, November). More than just a needs assessment: Putting the analysis back in swot analysis to find the best fit between your program and the situation. American Evaluation Association National Conference, Chicago, IL.
• Laursen, B. K. (2014, July 3). How to evaluate the situation, not just the program: It’s complex! AEA365.org, July 3. http://aea365.org/blog/bethany-laursen-on-how-to-evaluate-the- situation-not-just-the-program-its-complex/

• Laursen, B. K. (2015, May). Social network analysis: Use as a systems tool when evaluating collaboration capacity. University of Colorado-Denver School of Public Affairs. May 13.
• Laursen, B. K. (2018, February 14). What else can you do with SNA besides SNA? AEA365.org, February 14. http://aea365.org/blog/sna-tig-week-what-else-can-you-do-with-sna- besides-sna-by-bethany-laursen/
• Laursen, B. K. (2015, July 21). Defining the standard for ‘good’ when using social network analysis as an evaluation tool. AEA365.org, July 21. http://aea365.org/blog/sna-tig-week-bethany- laursen-on-defining-the-standard-for-good-when-using-social-network-analysis-as-an- evaluation-tool/
• Laursen, B. K. (2013, September). Easy SNA (for evaluating modular adhocracies). Environmental Evaluators Network Pacific Forum, Corbett, OR.
• Laursen, B. K. (2013, April). Social network analysis: A tutorial for Ph.D. students. School of Human Ecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI.
• Laursen, B. K. (2012, April). Social network analysis: How conservation connects with Kevin Bacon. People for Conservation and Society, University of Wisconsin-Madison. April 11.

Green, M. B., Laursen, B. K., Campbell, J. L., McGuire, K. J., & Kelsey, E. P. (2015). Stable water isotopes suggest sub‐canopy water recycling in a northern forested catchment. Hydrological Processes, 29(25), 5193–5202. http://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.10706

Stable water isotopes provide a means of tracing many hydrologic processes, including poorly understood dynamics like soil water interactions with the atmosphere. We present a four‐year dataset of biweekly water isotope samples from eight fluxes and stores in a headwater catchment at the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest, New Hampshire, USA. We use Dansgaard's deuterium excess (d) parameter to infer hydrologic processes that cause stable water isotope fractionation. Although we expected to observe a decrease in d from precipitation to soil water because of evaporation, instead we observed an increase, which suggests sub‐canopy water vapour recycling (evapotranspiration and then re‐condensation). However, the underlying mechanisms and spatial dynamics remain uncertain. The apparent recycling is most evident in the growing season; weak evidence suggests a similar process in the dormant season. Sub‐canopy water recycling is a novel hydrologic process that should have implications for micro‐meteorology and habitat provided by the forest sub‐canopy environment. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Laursen, B. K. (2012, March 15). Stewardship meets complexity theory. (D. Bouma, Ed.) The Au Sable Institute for Environmental Studies. March 15.

Laursen, B. K. (2010, Winter). Water quality monitoring is addictive; beware! Merrymeeting News. Friends of Merrymeeting Bay.